ultrade_market_assets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get trading assets' implies a read operation but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns a list or single asset, or involves any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool in a financial trading context where such details are critical.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise ('Get trading assets'), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified rather than truly concise, as it omits necessary context. It's front-loaded but fails to earn its place by providing sufficient value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a trading system and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'trading assets' entails, the return format, or how it fits among many sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively in this domain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates for the lack of parameters by not introducing confusion or redundancy.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get trading assets' states a basic action but lacks specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'trading assets' means in this context (e.g., cryptocurrencies, stocks, tokens) or distinguish this tool from siblings like 'ultrade_market_balances' or 'ultrade_market_symbols', which might provide overlapping or related information. While it includes a verb and resource, it remains vague about the exact scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'ultrade_market_balances' (likely for account balances) and 'ultrade_market_symbols' (possibly for market symbols), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.